<p>I am currently a senior at the University of Notre Dame. Im interested in attending law school at some point in the next few years. At this point, I know that Im late to apply for the 2010-2011 academic year. </p>
<p>Ive been extremely involved in politics throughout my college career and I plan on working on a congressional campaign through November. After November, I plan on working on Capitol Hill for one or two terms (two or four years) and then going to law school.</p>
<p>Im wondering if my relatively low GPA (2.9) will affect my chances at getting into top 25 law schools two and four years out. I am confident in my abilities to do well on the LSAT. Would a high LSAT score and good work experience on Capitol Hill compensate for a low undergraduate GPA? </p>
<p>Also, I know that its common for people to go to law school after stints on Capitol Hill. Do they often go to home state law schools or stay in DC? Does Capitol Hill experience (legislative assistant, legislative aide, special assistant) help in the admissions process?</p>
<p>Thanks so much in advance for your input and advice!</p>
<p>Work experience on Capitol Hill would normally give an applicant a strong edge in admissions to top law schools, but GPA and LSAT scores always outrank experience. With a 2.9 GPA, your chances of a top 25 law school are slim.</p>
<p>Yes, experience does distance you. But that means that at a school like, say, Georgetown where the average GPA of an accepted student is a 3.68 you could get in with around a 3.4. Very, very few top tier law schools will even consider accepting a student with a GPA below a 3.0. Honestly, even with work experience your best bet might be your home state’s flagship institution.</p>
<p>you will need to demolish the LSAT to have a good chance. northwestern seems to be the most forgiving and will accept a few 175+ / 3.0- people with a few years of work experience</p>
<p>Is there any unusual reason for the low GPA? If the GPA reflects you actual academic ability and performance, you are not wise to attend a top tier law school where others are much better students. Being at the bottom of your class at a very good law school is not as good as being at the top of your class at a regional law school. The only thing worse than being denied admission to law school is being admitted to law school and performing poorly.</p>
<p>Experience on The Hill is not anything remarkable for DC law schools. If you apply out of the area it will be more of a novelty. Everybody and their dog has interned/worked/volunteered for some senator or rep. or Office of Fill in the Blank.</p>
<p>I know that I have what it takes to do well in law school. My undergraduate record is what it is because I spent most of college working for candidates and organizations that I passionately believe in. I’ve also accumulated a resume that I’m really proud of. I’ve been a leader. I think that is what really distinguishes myself from many of the other high achievers at Notre Dame.</p>
<p>At this point the whole discussion is premature. See what you get on the LSAT, and work from there. You do also have a semester left, and getting over 3.0 is a big deal. Not to mention, sometimes LSDAS calculates a GPA (slightly) differently than your own school does. They count A+'s but don’t cancel out retakes, which most undergraduate programs do, for example.</p>
<p>I hope you have a Capitol Hill job already lined up. My S graduated in Dec. '09 with BS and BA degrees with honors and spent one year in DC in vain trying to get a job on the Hill. He expanded his search to pr firms, etc. and used every connection possible. One entry level position at a big pr firm had 600 applicants. Of the 600, 24 were interviewed by phone. Then six were called in for more interviews. He was one of the six. Didn’t get the job. During his college career he had internships at a public interest group, pr firm, two press internships for senators and one for a high-profile governor.</p>
<p>He finally gave up, came home and is applying to law school. He had considered law school earlier but thought it wasn’t necessary for his career path. Maybe in three years the job market will be better. In any event a law degree won’t hurt.</p>
<p>I appreciate the advice bluedevilmike. I realize that this discussion is premature. I don’t plan on applying for law school until about 2012 and I don’t plan on taking the LSAT for at least another year. I also understand the importance of grades. My question, though, is whether grades are as important a factor in law school admissions if I am 2+ years out of undergrad. I’ve heard that grades play less of a role in business school applications once the candidate has accumulated significant work experience. Is that true for law school admissions as well?</p>
<p>kinshasa, I really appreciate the input. I’m sorry that your son didn’t get a job on Capitol Hill. Many of my friends are in the same predicament right now so I can definitely sympathize. I feel very fortunate that I have secured a job on the campaign of a candidate that has a great shot at winning in November. If he wins in November, I’ll likely follow him to DC to work on his legislative staff.</p>
<p>If you are out of undergrad less than 5 years, there is still more of an emphasis on your grades. You might be given a wink if you do teach for america/peace corp (but they have thier own weed out process) but even working, it would have to be something substantial.</p>
<p>the recruiters and employers from b-school and law-school have very different hiring philosophies which is part of the reason for their admissions policies.</p>
<p>let’s say there are two job candidates:</p>
<p>Candidate A: very academically inclined, doesn’t like socializing, extremely brilliant, shuns “group activities”, will try extremely hard to get good grades. doesn’t interview that well, and comes off a little awkward. ends up top 10% of the class.</p>
<p>Candidate B: very charismatic, perhaps ex varsity athlete. would rather hit up the bar with his classmates than study a little bit more for class the next day. has an excellent pedigree, ie prep school-> ivy league undergrad -> prestigious investment bank. doesn’t care about grades that much and ends up in the bottom 25% of the class. interviews extremely well.</p>
<p>law firms and legal employers will choose Candidate A every time, whereas business employers will choose Candidate B every time. i believe these preferences transfer through to the admissions process as well. of course being a great interviewer/charismatic helps in law, and being extremely smart helps in business, but the priorities are different for each type of employer. </p>
<p>all of this explains why law schools do not generally forgive bad undergraduate performance because they believe it will carry over into law school.</p>
<p>I mean, it’s true that your grades become less important as you get farther away from undergrad. The problem here is twofold.</p>
<p>First, you’re not proposing all that much time off. 2+ years really isn’t going to do the trick; you’d really have to be thinking 5+ or more realistically 10+.</p>
<p>Second, the boost you’re looking for is really quite gigantic. Post #4 is correct. Putting some distance between you and your transcript means getting in with a 3.4, not with a 2.9.</p>
<p>In other words: you’re correct in principle, but your specific proposal involves too little time and too-low grades.</p>